Was Democracy the precursor to Monarchy in Ancient India?

 

Indian Democracy: A Civilizational Predisposition

Democracy, per its very nature and apparatus, is inextricably interlinked with the modus vivendi of the people of Bharata. Civilizationally, it has not only been conducive to the prosperity and proselytization of democracy but also a catalyst to the process of democratization.

The Bharata Race facilitated and participated in intense exercises of intellectual edification through ‘deliberations in Representative Bodies’ premised upon the very sanctified sentinel of Democracy - Vox Populi, Vox Dei.

We find Bharata’s ancient history and roots replete with evidence of Robust Democratic  Representation and even Elections!

• King Vishal of the Vaishali (Vrijji Mahajanapada) was ‘elected and not nominated’!

• The Sabhas and Samitis of Ancient India can certainly be construed to be astonishingly analogous to our extant Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively- in both structure and representation.

•  The Ancient Text Rigveda mentions these Sabhas and Samitis about 40 times and in Atharvaveda about 10 times. It further goes on to say that King’s position is not absolute and he could be removed by the Sabha and Samitis- an institutionalized mechanism for accountability to his subjects - analogous to the No-Confidence Motion today!

•  What is more significant is that these Sabhas and Samitis were not necessarily aristocratic or even exclusionary, rather they were meritocratic! (It is clear from Panini that egalitarianism was an important element in the fifth century B.C., he preserves a special term for the gana where "there was no distinction between high and low." )

•  In the Chola Dynasty, the concept of Local Self Government was extremely robust and a successful model aimed at Atma Nirbharta of Grams(Villages)

 It wouldn't be surprising to know, in this context, that the term ‘Nagar’ was sourced from here.

• There are also references to ‘Jansadan’ in the Shantiparv of Mahabharata.

•  It is at the same time not out of nowhere that the tradition of oath-taking was institutionalized in Indian Monarchies- for these traditions trickled down from democracies themselves.

• The Sanskrit Scholar Panini notes the ‘terms for a vote, decisions reached by voting, and the completion of a quorum.’ Another cluster of words indicates that the division of assemblies into political parties was well known. Further, Panini and his commentators show that sometimes a smaller select group within a sangha had special functions -- acting as an executive, or perhaps as a committee for defined purposes.

• Coins and inscriptions have documented the existence of republics and the workings of popular assemblies. Republicanism, therefore, is likely to be the preceptor of Monarchies and Regnal Traditions: By the third and fourth centuries A.D., states known to be republics in earlier times were subject to hereditary executives, which over time gave way to monarchies.

• Notion of Meritocracy in Ancient India :  Those republics that threw open the political process to all kshatriyas were not extending the franchise from one clearly defined group to another, albeit a larger one, to all those who could claim, and justify the claim, to be capable of ruling and fighting.

•  Indian republics of the late fourth century could be much larger than the contemporaneous Greek polis . And it seems that in the northwestern part of India, republicanism was the norm.  Alexander's historians mention a large number of republics, some named, some not, but only a handful of kings. The prevalence of republicanism and its democratic form is explicitly stated by Diodorus Siculus based on eyewitness accounts.

• It is also very likely that there existed a universal adult franchise owing to the inherently inclusionary nature of these representative bodies.

Often an ignored fact, that these notions were thought of and practiced only centuries later by what is now popularly called the oldest democracy in the world.

I ardently believe that the Western Nature and praxis of democracy cannot and should not be juxtaposed with the Indian Model to derive an ostentatious comparison.

Owing to their very nature and composition those two models are to be measured by different yardsticks since they are vindicated by contrasting results.

As the Political Philosopher Thomas Paine observed, - ‘Human Rights Originate In Nature thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges’

The UDHR, Bill of Rights, Victoria Declaration (1858) aimed to do just that. Thus, democracies should not be solely appraised based on the number of progressive legislations or even on a case-to-case basis.

It is to be internalized that Indian Democracy is by its very nature- is greater than the sum of its parts.

Right to Life, Liberty, Dignity, and Pursuit of Happiness- cornerstones of Human Rights- are therefore inherent in the Civilization of Bharata, they are just to be actualized by our collective conscience.

Bharata’s democracy,  despite being one of the youngest and the largest- has managed to thrive and stay vibrant.

It is therefore incumbent upon all of us- the components and enablers of the idea of Bharata- to ensure the perpetuity of the magnanimous democracy called Bharata by living in harmony and in conjunction with our Constitutional Preambulatory values. 

Best,

Malhar Satav

satavmalhar@gmail.com